About your Search

20120926
20121004
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)
journal" is next. ♪ host: this wednesday morning we would love to hear your take on foreign policy. specifically on what the governor -- former governor massachusetts, mitt romney, and president barack obama had said yesterday. specifically yesterday said -- specifically we want your general level confidence in each candidate on the area of foreign policy. here are the numbers to call. for democrats, 202-737-0001. for republicans, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. if you would like to take part in the program, there are different ways to do that. twitter.com/c-spanwj,an.o facebook.com or e-mail at journal@c-span.org. "the baltimore sun" encapsulate the speeches yesterday. they pointed out that president barack obama made an impassioned defense of the expression of freedom worldwide. mitt romney urged other nations to emulate the free economy and suggested that the obama leadership in the middle east has been inadequate and reactive. this is a short piece to start us off from the president at united nations yesterday, talking about the middle east. [video clip] >> i beli
prime minister did iran and u.s. foreign policy part of the conversation on this morning's "washington journal." host: he is teaching as a professor of diplomacy and international politics at harvard. thank you for joining us. you heard the speeches from new york and all the play and the dueling foreign policy points. what is your take away as far as each candidate had to say in new york? guest: first, it is every interesting that foreign policy and national-security issues have made a real comeback. they are part of this campaign, a big part of the discussion. i think that is a good thing because of foreign policy is so important to every single american because we live in a globalized world. president obama gave a very thoughtful, reflective speech yesterday. he covered a lot of ground ready focused on the middle east and the very tragic events that took place two weeks ago this week, the assassination of ambassador chris stevens in libya and three of his diplomatic colleagues. he also made two important points, that americans obviously want to show great religious tolerance for the
on foreign policy, and my opponents have a different view -- even on foreign policy my opponents have a different view. he says it was tragic how i when did it -- how i ended the war in iraq. i am going to use the money to pay down our debt and to put more people back to work, rebuilding roads and bridges and schools and runways, because after a decade of war, it is time to do nation-building right here at home. [applause] that is a choice we now face. that is what this election comes down to. the other side, they like to tell you, and they are going to spend a lot of money to get these checks for people who can afford to write a $10 million checks, and they are going to tell you is bigger tax cuts and regulations is the only way to go. now they are going to tell you since government cannot do everything it should do almost nothing. their theory is if you cannot afford health care, we hope you do not get sick. there are some companies polluting the air, but that is the price of progress. maybe you cannot afford to go to college. your parents will play a. that is not who we are. now th
. to deal with china, it is the fundamental problem of american foreign policy right now. the difficulty is chinese history is totally different. we have been secure through most of our history from other countries, the impact of foreign societies on us. the chinese state has always been surrounded by a multiplicity of states. the management of all barriers has been a principal necessity of chinese foreign policy. we have done it on a pragmatic basis. the chinese have learned to take a longer, strategic view because one cannot decide the outcome of any issue unless you look at it in a longer-term. but these societies have two different approaches. it is an ever evolving situation. china is now rising country. we have the status quo countries similar to germany and england and therefore the likelihood is something like that might occur again. remember, china is a country that is returning to what it believes it has always been, namely the center of asian affairs. but it is inevitable that the rise in china will impinge on the united states. there are a number of things we need to keep in
under control. your statement is not accurate. >> let me go back to the policy questions, foreign policy question about the situation recently with the north africa. american taxpayers billions of dollars -- it was a big issue when we saw the scenes will see in a moment in egypt and the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. a radical islamist group attacked the u.s. embassy and tore down the american flag. in the same day, in libya, an assault on the consulate resulted in the death of the american ambassador christopher stevens and three others. these images echo the worst -- the recall those moments in 1979 with the taking of american hostages at the embassy in iran. u.s. taxpayers as an enormous 1.6 billion doris to egypt, -- $1.6 billion to egypt, which is now run by a former member of the muslim brotherhood. should the u.s. give up foreign aid to these nations, mr. sadler? >> no. not now, we have a fledgling government being formed a. with egypt withholding funds, the editorial board agreed is time for us to stop the old on that aid. it is in our best interests to stay involved.
. prior to that, he led the publican -- republican feature. he also has served as foreign policy adviser to senator john mccain. all of you see him regularly on fox news sunday and the fox news channel. i met him in 1981 when he was a very young assistant professor at the university of pennsylvania. the question that i would like to pose for each of you, and i will start with governor what does this through feel about the leadership styles of mitt romney and president obama? >> probably not much. >> ok, will this panel is over. [laughter] >> you could extrapolate a few things from president obama's first term that may be instructive. he is not the manager. he does out of a history of managing things. you bring in a lot of good, well trained people and give them tasks and try to lead a government. in the case of mitt romney, who has been a governor, a business guy. he has run the olympics. i think his attitude would be efficiency. i will come in and look at running governments, like a business, which is not always the right answer because government is not a business. you should always lo
have a demonstration that has not been clear on foreign policy, and there has been a lack of leadership. in 2009, there were protesters in iran. we heard nothing from our government. in 2011, the government finally stepped forward and we saw some sanctions put in place. i am happy to see european countries have also stepped forward and into a limited sanctions against iran. but we need to have a strong administration who is going to make it clear that a line needs to be drawn. we have never heard from this government. we have never heard them say that iran should not be in reaching uranium. -- enriching uranium. we need to make clear if we are going to be leaders, if the united states of america is going to be a leader in foreign policy and keep stability in this world as has been our mission in the past, then we need to make it clear. >> sen. fischer, thank you. senator kerrey, 30 seconds. >> i'm not running for president so i do not want to disagree with president obama or governor romney on iran, but we cannot allow them to acquire nuclear weapons. but what happens afterwards? they d
tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern. the last debate will have a theme of foreign policy. the carnegie endowment for international peace recently hosted a panel on the president's role in leading foreign policy talking about american influence, the changing international order, and more. among the panelists is a thomas friedman. this is about an hour and half. >> good evening. my name is david rothkopf and i will be the moderator for this carnegie endowment discussion about how the next american president should engage the world. this is a debate format it discussion. we have a terrific group here. on my right, we have john ikenberry from princeton. next to him as thomas friedman from "the new york times." then just a matter is from the carnegie endowment. then robert keeton from the brookings institute. -- jessica matthews and then robert kagan. i will open up with a quotation from one or two of the panelists and we will then have some interaction on the theme of the ". lanham alaskan questions about related issues. at the end of each one of these 20 or 25 minute sections i will look to you for
impact and influence on the big decisions, especially those made a lead the major domestic and foreign policies. in the united states and in europe, their voices are not heard, even if -- human and ethical values are satisfied -- sacrificed for growth, and the willingness to listen to the demands of the people has become only at the time of elections. the current world order is discriminatory and based on injustice. distinguished friends, what should be done, and what is the way out of the current situation? there is no doubt that the world is in need of a new order and a fresh way of thinking, in which man is recognized as got's supreme creation, enjoying material and some -- spiritual quality. the divine nature film with a desire to seek justice and truth. -- filled with a desire to seek justice and truth. human dignity and universal happiness and perfection. an order which is afterpiece, -- after peace, less insecurity, and for all walks of life around the globe. an order founded on trust and kindness and putting forth hearts and hands closer to each other. rulers must love people.
a cartoon. mitt romney -- the u.s. should immediately bomb england. foreign policy with mitt romney. this is a cartoon that i had in my comic strip. we each have these -- i do not know. i am not sure if best and -- i promised i would not miss up your comic strip. we each do a comic strip so we are lucky as far as editorial cartoons. good to use the other side of our brands to read comics. i have been accused of making my way to political. this is my 9/11 tribute. it actually was originally a long strip. you have to turn your head to see it. i made it into an editorial cartoon. here is mitt romney having a candlelight vigil for osama bin laden. this is a cartoon i did the year after 9/11 about maybe some of the causes behind 9/11. this is also the year after 911. i call it the twin tepees. it marks the genocide that has happened. it was a reaction to some of the more excess of chest beating about 9/11. we never remember the other tragedies that have been on american soil. i do not really have anything to say about this. [laughter] i think the ladies and know what i am talking about.
questions. people need answers. this foreign-policy mass, -- mess, he always watns transparency. host: you're in a swing state. are you seeing a lot of commercials? caller: i go back and forth between denver and the suburbs. when they go out and do the polls, they're finding out that they're asking more democrats and coming back with a 10 point lead. from what i've seen, they're trying to go back to the 2008 turn out. host: that was got from colorado springs. up next in oregon on the democratic line. caller: it's nice to talk to you today. thank you for taking my call. the media tries to interject their opinions into the politics of what's going on today. i do not care whether that is republican or democrat. i think the media has this about their ability to be neutral. one of the examples that i would give is to checked politifact. whenever they give up facts about the president and romney -- did he really do that stuff? then instead of coming back, if obama is not 100% on a point, they will find some way or some small percentage to show that he was not exactly a perfectly right therefore
believe this is an area where we have to stand united as americans on this foreign policy. i have voted for tough and biting sanctions against iran and believe that that process needs to continue to play itself out. all options on the table, but i also would never frivolously, not quite the right word. i would never without thoughtful plans send our men and women into harm's way without an exit strategy and an assurance we are going to be effective. >> our next question is from robert kennedy, directed first to representative baldwin. >> representative, the situation in afghanistan, american troops being killed by the people that they're training to provide security forer that country, some of those training missions now have been put on hold at least temporarily. how in your opinion, should americans continue to be at risk in that environment? is it too unstable of an environment for effective security exercise to continue? your thoughts on that. >> i appreciate that question. in 2001, i voted to authorize use of mill tear force in afghanistan. in the days and months following the nen
. that needs to be made clear. we have an administration that has a foreign policy that is in confusion. it is not clear to our allies nor to our foes. with regards to iran, we saw student protestors. no word from this administration. no word at all. finally in 2011 the united states stepped forward with sanctions. i'm happy that the european nations have stepped forward with sanctions as well. but we need to be clear with our allies, with our ally israel. this isn't just their problem or that reggie. this is a problem for the world. it is estimated in three years the iranians are going to have icbm's that can reach the united states. this is our concern. and we have heard nothing from this administration with regard to iran enriching uranium. there is a lack of leadership, a lack of claret. -- clarity. i want america to remain a stabilizing force in the world. a lack of leadership, a lack of clarification, when our allies need to know what we are doing, we have lost that. moredon't know who is confused, governor romney or president obama. it is a confusing time in the middle east. the
with something, and you get touched on some positions. how would you describe foreign policy? how should america face the world? >> we should be the shining begin on the hill. but our military interventions, are going in, and we are determining -- we are replacing one dictator with another dictator. foreign aid is money spent on dictators. it is not spent on people in other countries. it is spent on propping up other governments. we are funding the insurgents in syria, and one-quarter of the insurgents in syria are supposed to be al qaeda. did we not do this in afghanistan? did we not bankroll osama bin laden? what we ought to have learned is that these military interventions make enemies to the united states, people who are affected by this. these drones strikes, yes, we hit the targets, but we wipe out another quarter block. we kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians living in these countries that we are ostensibly there to help. we are just continuing to make more and more enemies. it is no surprise that the unrest in the middle east is occurring right now. i would get out of our embassi
an administration that has a foreign policy that is in confusion. it is not clear to our allies nor to our foes. with regards to iran, in 2009 we saw a student protestors. no word from this administration. no word at all. finally, in 2011, the united states stepped forward with sanctions. i am happy that the european nations have stepped forward with sanctions as well. but we need to be clear with our allies, with our ally israel. it is not just a problem of that region. this is a problem for the world. it is estimated that in three years, the iranians are going to have icbm's that could reach the united states. this is our concern, and we have heard nothing from this administration with regard to iran enriching uranium. there's a lot of leader -- lack of leadership, a lack of clarity. i want america to remain a stabilizing force in the world. we need to have that. but with the lack of leadership, lack of clarification, what our allies don't know what we're doing, when our foe shalits just, we've lost that. >> senator kerrey? >> i don't know who is more confused, governor romney or president ob
. that needs to be made clear. we have an administration that has foreign policy that is in confusion. it is not clear to our allies. in 2009 we saw student , and no word from this administration. in 2011 the united states stepped forward with a sanction. i am happy european nations have stepped forward with a sanction, but we need to be clear with our ally, israel, and this is not their problem. it is not just a problem in that region. this is a problem for the world. it is estimated in three years the iranians are going to be able to reach the united states. this is our concern, and we have heard nothing from the sun ministration -- from this administration with regards to iran enriching. there is a lack of clarity. i want america to remain a stabilizing force in in the world. we need to have thought, but with lack of leadership, lack of clarification, when our allies do not know what we are doing common we have lost that. >> thank you. senator kerry. >> this is a confusing time after the arab spring. it is hard to find out what is going on in the middle east. they do not call it th
will look at the issue of foreign policy on this year's presidential campaign. a political science professor at norfolk state university will focus on the role of virginia in the election. we will also be joined by the editor in chief of the washington monthly to discuss a recent article in the magazine examining the consumer financial protection juror -- protection bureau. >> september 11, 2001, was a day that changed my life forever. i will go through a presentation, able ally in the account of the historical account of the attack as things transpired that day. a lot of things happened very quickly. i will do my best not to ramble on and go too fast. i would ask you to sit back and clear your mind and put yourself in that room and you'll get a real sense of what it was like to be at the top of the food chain. >> more from a retired lieutenant colonel robert darling. this weekend on american history tv, sunday at 7:30 on c-span3. >> the former ambassador to pakistan says the u.s. needs a new approach in its relationship with that country. he spoke for the first time since returning from isl
of the country's top oil producers are also located there as well. the added states foreign policy, toward the persian gulf, has focused on ensuring the free flow of oil from the gulf to global markets. and opposing the nomination of that area. traditionally, the soviet union, but in recent decades, iraq under saddam hussein. this has embroiled us and two wars. and lead to a significant military, a commitment of military assets in the area. the question arises regionwide is the united states extended such efforts and so much of its assets? when we are a number three oil producer in the world. and we import less than 20% of our crude imports from the gulf. these are the issues we will explore today. is the global energy marketplace changing? is the persian off oil and gas still important? is it likely to be in the future? where the dynamics in the immediate -- -- the impact on the area's ability to produce? or to export? we have with us tonight three very distinguished panelists. on my right, presently an adjunct professor at the school of business at georgetown university. for the previous
branches right now? >> i noted in the survey of american public opinion on foreign policy which just came out recently, there were very strange attitudes of americans regarding the middle east. a large majority saw it as the region of the world's most likely to create stress to the national security of the united states. there is a general trend of wanting less involvement militarily, economically, and so forth with this region. along with what david said, public opinion and how voters and citizens feel about the involvement of their country in the middle east is another issue. >> i would like to enter with certain details. it is very tricky and a very important. they may have problems, but the european union will continue to exist without any doubt. that is my position and my belief. for that part of the world, we are talking about our neighborhood. and therefore, the stability there is for migration, many things related to that mediterranean sea. it will be our priority for ever. it is always in the attention of any prime minister of the european union. more intensely in the south, and
at on a case by case basis. that those two issues of the foreign policy of the united states, as well as were we believe the military needs to be hored up. --: the defense budget does that sound right? guest: that sounds about right. caller: hello? host: go ahead. guest: good morning. caller: i have a couple of comments. i was disturbed by this conversation. miss blakey a corporate head and she has to do her job. things like this -- narrow minded republicans. i think americans want something different. we want peace. i know that is her job. host: your question, sir? caller: what are they fighting for? they want to give the american people less things. it is not fair. we to build back america and create jobs here. the idea of having a psychological advantage is -- host: we will leave it there. guest: everything i've been talking about this morning goes to the issue of preserving peace and stability. in the world we live and, peace must be maintained through strength. that is something most people accept. there are a number of factors in our economy. defense and military spending has a major ef
issues of the foreign policy of the united states, as well as were we believe the military needs to be shored up. host: the defense budget -- does that sound right? guest: that sounds about right. caller: hello? host: go ahead. guest: good morning. caller: i have a couple of comments. i was disturbed by this conversation. miss blakey a corporate head and she has to do her job. things like this -- narrow minded republicans. i think americans want something different. we want peace. i know that is her job. host: your question, sir? caller: what are they fighting for? they want to give the american people less things. it is not fair. we to build back america and create jobs here. the idea of having a psychological advantage is -- host: we will leave it there. guest: everything i've been talking about this morning goes to the issue of preserving peace and stability. in the world we live and, peace must be maintained through strength. that is something most people accept. there are a number of factors in our economy. defense and military spending has a major effect on the jobs at hom
decisions, especially those made of the domestic and foreign policies. in the united states and in europe, their voices are heard. they constitute 99% of the society. the human add ethical value are sacrificed in order to win growth and the willingness to listen to the demands of the people has become only to the time of election. the current world order is discriminatory and based on injustice. distinguished friends and colleagues, what should be done and what is the way of the current situation? there is no doubt that the world is in need of a new order and a fresh way of thinking. and although which man is recognized as god's supreme creation, enjoying material and spiritual equalities and possessing divine nature filled with in the -- in order tor survive, human dignity and believe in the universal happiness and perfection. three, an order which is after peace, security, and welfare for all walks of life around the globe. four, all that is founded upon trust and kindness, closer to each other, they must love people. five, a just and fair order in which everybody is equal before law an
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)